Why The Citadel?
 
May 2013 Print E-mail

Faculty Development Committee Spring Meeting: May 2, 2013

 

Attendance: C. Betterton, D. Matthews, C. Nolan, S. Yost (Chair)

 

Due to the lack of a quorum, no business was conducted. Votes will be taken by e-mail on three main issues on the agenda:

  1. The committee will elect a Chair for 2013 – 14. (The current Chair will agree to continue.)
  2. A vote will be taken on modifying the criteria so that the Development Committee funds officers of organizations attending meetings. The budget for this would then be transferred to the Development Committee.
  3. A vote will be taken on a proposal for modifying the proposal due dates for 2013 – 14 as shown in the following table.

Quarter

Proposed Due Date

Traditional Due Date

October – December

26 August (start of classes)

16 September

January – March

21 October

11 November

April – June

10 February

10 March

July – September

14 April

14 April

 

Follow-Up (May 9, 2013)

 

Twelve responses to the questions posed above were received either in person at the meeting, or by e-mail. Those participating in the voting were P. Nolan (in person), C. Betterton (in person and e-mail), W. Dudgeon, J. Bahk, R. Blanton, S. Tenney, S. Hewett, E. Wallace, S. Heuston, T. Dion, A. Wellman, and S. Yost. The votes for S. Yost to continue as chair were unanimous, with no other nominees, and he agreed to do so. The votes to adapt the new dates were also unanimous, with no discussion, so these will be published soon. There were a number of questions raised about the Provost’s proposal for the Development Committee to handle the funding of officers attending meetings, and it appears that this issue is not yet ready for a vote. S. Yost is scheduled to have another meeting with the Provost to discuss these matters, and will ask him to resolve the remaining questions before we take a vote. There was one clearly positive vote and two clearly negative, with the rest indecisive.

 

The following comments were received:

 

  1. If the committee take over expenses for officers to attend professional meeting, could we keep those funds in a separate account? That way, the $2500 limit might not be affected. It might be helpful to ask Jane for past records of officer travel expenses, to get an idea of how much will be spent for this type of activity.
  2. If the $2500 limit applies to these, officers who are now receiving these funds and receiving development grants will have to choose, and will lose part of their funding.
  3. I am always for more money for our Development Committee. I like the idea that “officers are expected to seek funds from their organization before seeking them from our Development Committee.” If this is impossible, then, our Committee should ask the Provost to pay from his coffer, NOT from ours.
  4. Moving the funds for officers of organizations to the FDC should be no problem, but am not sure how the stipulation to seek funds from their organization would work. (I guess you mean the organization of which they are an officer, not their Citadel department.) Would the FDC want a letter from the organization saying they will not fund, or what?
  5. If the committee take over expenses for officers to attend professional meeting, could we keep those funds in a separate account? That way, the $2500 limit might not be affected. It might be helpful to ask Jane for past records of officer travel expenses, to get an idea of how much will be spent for this type of activity.
  6. I’m voting no on the funds for officers as it is a way for the Provost to cut our budget by stacking more into it, but not add amount he currently allocates for such trips. Since we never have an idea of what the budget is, we will never know how much should have been transferred.
  7. I like it the way it is currently set up.
  8. I am fine with paying for officer’s travel.
  9. Will wait on vote for other item after discussion.